Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Prevasio comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
3rd
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud and Data Center Security (5th), Container Security (3rd), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (4th), Compliance Management (2nd)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
4th
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (9th), Container Security (4th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (2nd), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (3rd), Microsoft Security Suite (4th), Compliance Management (3rd)
Prevasio
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
39th
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
28th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Container Monitoring (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 3.1%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 11.2%, down from 12.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Prevasio is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew W - PeerSpot reviewer
Tells us about vulnerabilities as well as their impact and helps to focus on real issues
Looking at all the different pieces, it has got everything we need. Some of the pieces we do not even use. For example, we do not have Kubernetes Security. We are not running any K8 clusters, so it is good for us. Overall, we find the solution to be fantastic. There can be additional education components. This may not be truly fair to them because of what the product is going for, but it would be great to see additional education for compliance. It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background.
Vibhor Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
A single tool for complete visibility and addressing security gaps
Currently, issues are structured in Microsoft Defender for Cloud at severity levels of high, critical, or warning, but these severity levels are not always right. For example, Microsoft might consider a port being open as critical, but that might not be the case for our company. Similarly, it might suggest closing some management ports, but you might need them to be able to log in, so the severity levels for certain things can be improved. Even though Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a way to temporarily disable certain alerts or notifications without affecting our security score, it would be better to have more granularized control over these recommendations. Currently, we cannot even disable certain alerts or notifications. There should be an automated mechanism to design Azure policies based on the recommendations, possibly with AI integration. Instead of an engineer having to write a policy to fix security gaps, which is very time-consuming, there should be an inbuilt capability to auto-remediate everything and have proper control in place. Additionally, enabling Defender for Cloud at the resource group level, rather than only at the subscription level, would be beneficial.
Reviewer75941 - PeerSpot reviewer
An excellent, intelligent tool that is helpful for finding duplicate rules
AFA is helpful when finding duplicate rules, subnets, and policies for your ports that have not been used in the last six months. It also helps to find out which ports have been opened for all firewalls. After that, we run the reports and share them with the customer. After getting approval from the customer, if there is a block on a particular port or ports not used in a current environment, Analyzer is helpful when placing the change request of the users. In this case, AlgoSec provides the link to the user who raises the request though the automation, which is the change request. From that change request, it comes through our ticketing tools, e.g., BMC Remedy. Then, we have to check and approve it. Once it gets approved, we deploy the particular policies, as per the user's request. It provides visibility for the risk. Whenever unnecessary ports have been opened in our environment, whether by mistake or human error, a support ticket gets opened so we can find out about it in an easy way. After that, we can implement or block the particular ports if they are not necessary for the organization's production. The solution has become more helpful during the cleanup rules for the firewall, when we do those activities twice a month. For example, if a user raises a request two to three months ago, then we forget to block the particular port by human error. During the client's cleanup workshop, we can make things clearer, which is more useful for us when cleaning up unnecessary rules and ports from the firewall. AlgoSec enables us to manage these hybrid environments in a single pane of glass. It is an excellent, intelligent tool. The console is user-friendly for understanding and implementing things on firewalls. It is helpful for finding duplicate rules.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable aspects of PingSafe are its alerting system and the remediation guidance it provides."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"PingSafe offers an intuitive user interface that lets us navigate quickly and easily."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"Singularity Cloud Workload Security provides us with better security detection and more visibility. It is another resource that we can use to detect vulnerabilities in our company's systems. For example, it can help us detect new file processes that we are not familiar with, which could be used by attackers to exploit our systems. Singularity Cloud Workload Security can also help us diagnose and analyze data to determine whether it is malicious or not. Singularity Cloud Workload Security is like another pair of eyes that can help us protect our systems from cyberattacks."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"It integrates very well. We sell different products from different vendors. We know that the SentinelOne Singularity platform can be integrated with several different solutions from different vendors."
"The most valuable features are automated threat response, AI detection, and static and dynamic detection."
"When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties."
"The most valuable feature is the hunting feature, which integrates well into the entire Microsoft ecosystem."
"Defender lets you orchestrate the roll-out from a single pane. Using the Azure portal, you can roll it out over all the servers covered by the entire subscription."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has improved our security poster by at least 100 percent."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud is stable and reliable as advertised."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"The most valuable feature for me is the variety of APIs available."
"It isn't a highly complex solution. It's something that a lot of analysts can use. Defender gives you a broad overview of what's happening in your environment, and it's a great solution if you're a Microsoft shop."
"The most valuable feature is the automation that can be accomplished by using scripts. If we didn't have AlgoSec, I would have to do everything manually."
"The firewall policy summarization is the most valuable feature. It helps us to cross-check the firewall ruleset. That's the main purpose of it. And of course, it monitors changes of the firewall policy. It provides full visibility into the risk involved in firewall change requests. It helps us to check for any integrity issues and conflicts with other rulesets, and of course the compliance."
"We have Check Point, Palo Alto, and FortiGate firewalls, and it integrates pretty seamlessly with these firewalls. We have had no issues so far."
"The most unique feature is the ability to help fix any gaps or mismatches in the configuration of the firewall."
"AlgoSec has good tools to manage policies and devices. Many administrators like how it helps you monitor and clean up the policy for the on-premise firewall."
"We have used the solution to implement and manage microsegmentation initiatives. That is the whole point of modeling towards, "Hey, how will this work for a specific situation in the end?" I think it's a great solution because a lot of companies are not just going to the cloud, but microsegmentation and service-delivered products. So, I feel like it is very capable and comparatively better than its peers, if not equal."
"The optimizations are the most useful aspect because most customers have a very unmanaged network with a lot of rules. We use a lot of the optimizations in our reports for improving firewall rules."
"AlgoBot is a Slack chatbot that they've designed to help people identify if the firewalls are going to allow or block specific network traffic. We leveraged this to allow our staff to check themselves if the firewalls are going to be blocking traffic or not. That saves us logging into the firewalls and running the query off the host. We give them the power to use it and it saves us time."
 

Cons

"Once all components, including the cloud piece and container runtime piece, integrate further and incorporate an AI layer for better comprehension, it will greatly enhance the utility of Singularity Cloud Security."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is an excellent CSSPM tool, but the CSC CWPP features need improvement."
"It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background."
"The integration with Oracle has room for improvement."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"One potential drawback is the cost of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security, which may be prohibitive for smaller businesses or startups, particularly those in regions with lower average incomes, such as India."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
"I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting."
"Another thing is that Defender for Cloud uses more resources than CrowdStrike, which my current company uses. Defender for Cloud has two or three processes running simultaneously that consume memory and processor time. I had the chance to compare that with CrowdStrike a few days ago, which was significantly less. It would be nice if Defender were a little lighter. It's a relatively large installation that consumes more resources than competitors do."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud is not compatible with Linux machines."
"Defender could improve how data is represented. It can be unstructured or slow to load."
"Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured."
"We work with multiple security vendors. It's rather difficult to integrate the vendors. AlgoSec is a platform that hasn't really been developed as much as we would like to just because of its complexity to set up. If it was easy to set up and easy to get integrations with other companies, then we would be doing it. But the thought is that we are relatively stretched thin in our team as it is and the complexity of configuring AlgoSec doesn't make it any easier."
"The API integration could potentially improve. I didn't get a chance to look and see how well this solution can integrate with ServiceNow or our GRC environment."
"When we send multiple requests across at once, sometimes it causes errors and FireFlow gets stuck. In cases like this, we have to go back in and fix it."
"In the new version H32, there are many, many bugs."
"The analysis part can be improved when I make a flow request. There should be a clear analysis of which metric part needs to be opened and which firewalls will be opened. It should give you a bit more graphical visibility about these."
"The technical support response time is low. This might be due to the coronavirus pandemic situation, but I am not getting full support when working with them."
"There is a little bit of scope for improvement in the risk profiles that come with the AlgoSec Firewall Analyzer module. Currently, AlgoSec provides only three standard zones within a risk profile. These standard zones are external, internal, and DMZ. Everybody's network is divided into different zones within a data center, but AlgoSec only provides three zones. This is a limitation that I see for the risk profile analysis. If there was an option to customize these zones, it would be great."
"Integration with Oracle on the cloud is not supported. I would also like to see integrations with network devices in Layer 2."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"PingSafe is not very expensive compared to Prisma Cloud, but it's also not that cheap. However, because of its features, it makes sense to us as a company. It's fairly priced."
"PingSafe is fairly priced."
"Its pricing was a little less than other providers."
"It's not expensive. The product is in its initial growth stages and appears more competitive compared to others. It comes in different variants, and I believe the enterprise version costs around $55 per user per year. I would rate it a five, somewhere fairly moderate."
"PingSafe's pricing is good because it provides us with a solution."
"While I'm slightly out of touch with pricing, I know SentinelOne is much cheaper than other products."
"PingSafe is less expensive than other options."
"The cost for PingSafe is average when compared to other CSPM tools."
"The licensing is straightforward but can become expensive if you cover everything. You must balance the cost against the importance of what needs covering."
"It has global licensing. It comes with multiple licenses since there are around 50,000 people (in our organization) who look at it."
"The tool is pretty expensive."
"Pricing depends on your workload size, but it is very cheap. If you're talking about virtual machines, it is $5 or something for each machine, which is minimal. If you go for some agent-based solution for every virtual machine, then you need to pay the same thing or more than that. For an on-premises solution like this, we were paying around $30 to $50 based on size. With Defender, Microsoft doesn't bother about the size. You pay based on the number of machines. So, if you have 10 virtual machines, and 10 virtual machines are being monitored, you are paying based on that rather than the size of the virtual machine. Thus, you are paying for the number of units rather than paying for the size of your units."
"There are improvements that have to be made to the licensing. Currently, for servers, it has to be done by grouping the servers on a single subscription... We don't have an option whereby, if all those resources are in one subscription, we can have each of the individual servers subject to different planning."
"They have a free version, but the license for this one isn't too high. It's free to start with, and you're charged for using it beyond 30 days. Some other pieces of Defender are charged based on usage, so you will be charged more for a high volume of transactions. I believe Defender for Cloud is a daily charge based on Azure's App Service Pricing."
"Defender's basic version is free, which is good. Many of our teams are evaluating the paid version against third-party products."
"The solution is expensive, and I rate it a five to six out of ten."
"For the South American market, the prices are very high."
"I heard that the licensing was around $100,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) solutions are best for your needs.
847,625 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about PingSafe?
The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best featu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingSafe?
It is cost-effective compared to other solutions in the market.
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
The documentation could be better. Besides improving the documentation, obtaining a professional or partner specializ...
How is Prisma Cloud vs Azure Security Center for security?
Azure Security Center is very easy to use, integrates well, and gives very good visibility on what is happening acros...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
Initially, the cost was reasonable, but additional services from Microsoft sometimes incur extra expenses that seem h...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Prevasio and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
847,625 professionals have used our research since 2012.